Defendant C&V Co., Ltd shall pay to the Plaintiff 3,55,963 won with 5% interest per annum from April 15, 2014 to July 22, 2016, and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the defendant Woops Co., Ltd. ordering payment exceeding 5,312,439 won is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

3. The Plaintiff’s remaining appeals against Defendant COSmmche Co., Ltd. and the appeal against Defendant Chymping Co., Ltd. are dismissed.

4. 40% of the total litigation costs between the Plaintiff and Defendant COSmmmmmmmmm company shall be borne by the Plaintiff, 60% by the Defendant Cmmmmmmmm chemical company, and the appeal costs and incidental appeal costs between the Plaintiff and Defendant Cmmmmmm chemical company shall be borne by the Plaintiff

5. The monetary payment portion under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The defendants pay to each plaintiff 1) 58,638,594 won with 5% interest per annum from April 15, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

[Judgment of the court below]

Paragraph 2 of this Article.

The plaintiff's non-use damage of the vehicle No. 1 4,521,853, ② Non-use damage of the vehicle No. 2 3,951,480, ③ fixed guard damage No. 37,959,209, ④ Business Loss 12,260,927, ② Non-use damage of the vehicle No. 1 2, ② Non-Use damage of the vehicle No. 2,260,927, ② Non-Use damage of the vehicle No. 2, ② Business Loss 6,103,026

The plaintiff appealed against the part against the plaintiff 1 to 4 as to the whole.

Defendant Woo-coops Co., Ltd. without an objection to KRW 3,051,513 (total amount of KRW 5,312,439), ② Non-use damage of a vehicle subparagraph 2, ④ Non-use damage of KRW 10 days from April 5, 2014 to April 14, 2014, and KRW 3,051,513 (total amount of KRW 5,312,439) from March 26, 2014 (total amount of KRW 5,07,439).

Therefore, within the scope of the judgment of this court, the judgment of the court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Woo-Wps Co., Ltd., and the Defendant Woo-Wps Co., Ltd. did not appeal ① KRW 2,260,927, ④ KRW 10-day from March 26, 2014 to April 4, 2014, 3,051,513 (total KRW 5,312,439) were excluded.

2. Basic facts

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore cites it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant COSmchemmche

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant COSV is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the discharge and circulation of the instant scrap metal contaminated by radiation under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy and the Civil Act.

B. Relevant statutes

(1) The Framework Act on Environmental Policy

2. The term "living environment" means an environment related to the daily life of people, such as the atmosphere, water, soil, noise, vibration, malodor, sunshine, etc.; 4. The term "environmental pollution" means the state which causes damage to human health or the environment by means of air pollution, soil pollution, sea pollution, noise, vibration, malodor, sunshine, etc.; 4. The term "environmental pollution" means the state which causes damage to human health or the environment. Business entities under Article 5 (Duties of Business Entities) shall voluntarily take necessary measures to prevent the environmental pollution and the environmental damage caused by their business activities and on the ground, and shall jointly and severally compensate for expenses to be incurred by the State or a local government for any environmental damage which is not less than 10 years old, such as the state of pollution, soil pollution, sea pollution, noise, vibration, malodor, sunshine, etc.

(b) Safety control of environmental radiation;

(2) A person who intends to import, export, or sell source materials or by-products from processing shall be entitled to the registration with the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission under Article 9 (Registration of Persons Responsible for Handling Source Materials or by-products from processing) (1) of the table contained in the main sentence: Provided, That the specific scope of a person eligible for registration and the amount of registration shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree, taking into consideration the level of activity, quantity, etc. of source materials or by-products from processing; 1. A person who intends to export, import, or sell source materials; 2. A person who intends to dispose of, dispose of, or recycle by-products from processing; 3. A person who intends to dispose of, or recycle by-products from processing; 4. A person responsible for handling or a manufacturer specified in Article 15 shall comply with the following guidelines in handling or managing source materials or by-products from the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission in order to protect the health and environment of workers involved; 2. An order to install facilities necessary for preventing fire prevention and flooding in the source materials or by-products from processing; 2.

(iii)radioactive waste management;

(1) The Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy may order the radioactive waste generators to transfer to the radioactive waste management agency for the management of radioactive wastes when the kinds and quantities of radioactive wastes, the disposal of which is limited in accordance with Article 70 (2) of the Nuclear Safety Act, have the radioactive waste generators bear the expenses incurred in radioactive waste management (hereinafter referred to as "management expenses") calculated in accordance with the standards prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the kinds and quantity of radioactive wastes generated, etc.: Provided, That a nuclear power plant operator is not required to bear an amount equivalent to the expenses imposed as charges pursuant to Article 15 (1) out of the management expenses. (1) The Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy may order the radioactive waste generators to take corrective measures within a prescribed period prescribed by Presidential Decree, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if he/she deems that the radioactive waste generators, etc. is likely to seriously impede the management of radioactive wastes due to his/her failure to perform his/her duty prescribed by this Act.

C. Relevant legal principles

In a case where the soil contamination substance was leaked, leaked, or disposed of by neglecting the soil contamination, thereby causing soil contamination, and thus, was distributed by providing the land including the contaminated soil to a transaction without purifying the contaminated soil, or where the land was distributed by providing the land to a transaction without disposing of it in an illegal manner, barring any special circumstance, barring any other special circumstance, it may constitute tort against the other party to the transaction and the current landowner who acquired the land prior to the transfer of the land

In addition, if the current landowner who purchased the land develops and uses the land to the underground where the contaminated soil or waste is buried, such as the case where he/she developed and uses the land to fully exercise his/her ownership of the land, the situation where the contaminated soil purification cost or waste disposal cost was paid or should be paid, or where the situation of the same situation as that of the contaminated soil purification cost or waste disposal cost was in accordance with the order of measures issued by the competent administrative agency under the Soil Environment Conservation Act, due to the illegal act, the result of the damage, which is the disbursement of the contaminated soil purification cost or waste disposal cost, actually occurred, the previous landowner who caused soil contamination or buried the waste, shall be liable for damages equivalent to the contaminated soil purification cost or waste disposal cost (Supreme Court en banc Decision 2009Da66

D. Whether liability for damages was established

In addition to the purport of Article 35(1) of the Constitution, Article 35(1) of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, the Environmental Environment Act, environmental radiation safety control and radioactive waste management Act, as well as the aforementioned provisions on the duty to purify the contaminated environment of the person causing radioactive contamination, the obligation to bear expenses for remedy for damages, supplementation of pollutants, return or remove pollutants, etc., and the following circumstances acknowledged by the legal principles of the above precedents and the above facts, if Defendant COSm chemical provided the instant scrap contaminated by radioactive radiation to the transaction without purifying radioactive materials after causing the instant scrap metal contaminated by radioactive contamination, barring any other special circumstances, if it was distributed by providing it to the transaction without purifying radioactive materials, it shall be deemed that not only Defendant COSmm chemical, the other party to the transaction, but also the Plaintiff who acquired the scrap metal contaminated by radioactive contamination, is liable for damages under

① Article 3 subparag. 4 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy stipulates “radioactive contamination” as one of the environmental pollution subject to the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, and in this case, scrap metals, vehicles, storages, etc. contaminated by radiation fall under the natural or living environment stipulated in subparagraphs 1 through 3 of Article 3 of the same Act. Thus, this case can be seen as one of the typical cases of occurrence of damage caused by radioactive contamination.

② Article 7 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy provides that a person causing environmental pollution shall bear the expenses to be incurred in remedy for damage caused by environmental pollution through his/her act or business activities. The above provision does not limit the object of remedy for damage to the other party.

③ Article 44 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy provides that if an environmental pollution causes damage, the person who caused the environmental pollution shall compensate for the damage. This provision does not limit the subject of the damage compensation to the other party.

④ Radioactive contamination may not reduce the amount of radioactive contamination without such special equipment as radiation measuring apparatus or radiation monitoring apparatus. However, radiumumum (Ra-226) detected in the instant case is over a thousand-year period and gasers emitted from the division of radiumumum rays cause fatal diseases to the human body, such as waste cancer. Therefore, even radioactive contamination requires strict liability to the one causing the pollution, who is not likely to cause soil contamination.

⑤ Defendant COSV asserts that he does not bear any duty of care for radiation safety control, and that he does not bear any general duty of care for radiation contamination, so he does not assume any responsibility for the generation and distribution of the scrap metal of radioactive contamination in this case.

However, the defendant OSV appears to have been inspected by the Safety Control Commission in 2013. Meanwhile, in this case, it appears that the defendant OSV has been appointed pursuant to the direction of the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission and the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety and Security to remove radioactive materials. As such, even if the defendant OSV chemistry is not a person responsible for registration in the place of business, but a person responsible for registration in the place of business, such as the manufacturing and selling of non-ferrous metal, manufacturing and selling of non-ferrous metal, mining and mineral products, manufacturing and selling of inorganic and organic chemical products, manufacturing and selling of inorganic and organic chemical products, manufacturing and selling of inorganic batteries and py compounds, manufacturing and selling of inorganic batteries materials, and waste disposal business, etc., it appears that there is a field of risk of radioactive materials to occur. The defendant OSV chemical itself appears to have been inspected by the radiation Safety Control Commission in 2013.

④ In a case where “A” who caused the radioactive contamination scrap metal sells the said scrap metal to “B” who is aware of the fact, and “B” sells the said scrap metal to “B” who is not aware of the fact, and “B” suffers from the radioactive contamination damage, it is reasonable to deny “B”’s claim for damages on the ground that “B” is not the opposite contractual party, and to accept “B” claim for damages against “B”. However, if “B” is insolvent or lack of financial capacity, it appears that the occurrence of the occurrence of the radioactive contamination would result in the removal of the radioactive contamination offender and the coercion of the lawsuit between the victims of the radioactive contamination, and it would be difficult for “B” to bring a lawsuit against “B” in subrogation of “B”, which would result in considerable effort and expenses to “B” and would not result in the completion of extinctive prescription. “A” who bears the burden of offsetting the victim’s fault, which would result in the offset of damages.

7) If the liability for damages is recognized against the subsequent purchaser of the radioactive contamination person, there may be doubts as to whether the damage is excessively increased. However, this is not relating to the nature of the liability for damages under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy, but to the scope of the liability for damages, which is related to the scope of the liability for damages, and is to be resolved in accordance with the nature of

E. Scope of liability for damages

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

In the trial of the court, the Plaintiff sought compensation for damages for the non-use of the vehicle(the 16-day loss) No. 1,521,853, and the non-use of the vehicle(the 15-day loss of the vehicle) No. 1 3,951,480, and the 20-day loss of the vehicle(the 15-day loss of the 15-day loss), and the 37,959,209, and the 37,959,209, and the 12,206,052 due to the suspension of supply(the 20-day loss of the 16-day loss of the radioactive contamination purification period).

(2) Relevant legal principles

Article 7 of the Framework Act on Environmental Policy provides that a person who causes environmental pollution due to his act or business activity shall, in principle, bear the expenses to be incurred in remedying the damage caused by such environmental pollution, and Article 44(1) provides that the person who causes the environmental pollution shall compensate for the damage in case of the damage caused by the environmental pollution. Thus, in case of the damage caused by the radioactive contamination, the person who causes the radioactive contamination shall be liable to compensate for the damage unless it is deemed that there is a proximate causal relation with the radioactive contamination, or unless it is a damage caused by any special circumstance unforeseeable by the person who causes the radioactive contamination.

(3) Determination by item

(A) Loss from failure to use the vehicles of heading 1 and 2;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 11, 12, 18, 26 through 29 (including paper numbers), ① the vehicle Nos. 1 and 2 used by the plaintiff for transporting the instant scrap metal was a new transport vehicle and a movable goods distribution vehicle, ② the vehicle Nos. 1 and 2 was detained in the said international lecture until the removal of pollutants due to the detection of radioactive contamination of the instant scrap metal; ③ the period of custody is from March 26, 2014 to April 12, 2014; ④ the average number of vehicles Nos. 2 from March 27, 2014 to April 12, 2014 to the owner of the said movable goods, ④ the amount of the vehicle No. 1 and 2 used for transporting the said scrap metal to the owner of each new movable goods, ⑤ the amount of the vehicle to be transported to the owner of each new movable goods, ⑤ the average number of new movable goods owned to the owner of each new movable property, five months and six months.

In light of the above facts in light of the above legal principles, vehicle rental fees and vehicle rental fees paid for vehicles contaminated by radiation cannot be used for the purpose of attracting the contamination purification period, and in light of the quantity, weight and transportation method of the scrap metal of this case, Defendant COSmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmms could be used for the purpose of using it, it

As to this, Defendant COSmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

(b) Fixed security damage;

The Plaintiff’s loss caused by the radioactive contamination of the instant scrap metal during a certain period of time remains after deducting the above fixed costs from the sales amount, and regardless of the discontinuance of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da24735, Dec. 10, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 94Da6185, Jul. 12, 1996). The reason why the loss incurred by the Plaintiff from the suspension of business should include the fixed costs regardless of the discontinuance of business, such as the fixed costs, in order to bring about the occurrence of the current net profit, it should be considered that the profit remains after deducting the above fixed costs from other variable costs. If the Plaintiff did not carry out business for a certain period of time, it should be deemed that the fixed costs remain as losses by not collecting the fixed costs, and thus, it should be deemed that the fixed net profit during a fixed period of 20-day period of time, which is different from the above passive net profit during a fixed period of 1).

In addition to the whole arguments on the items and amount of the fixed expense alleged by the Plaintiff, the aforementioned evidence and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 14, 20 and 30, the Plaintiff was unable to supply scrap metal at ○○-dong storage for the removal of radioactive contamination substances from March 26, 2014 to April 14, 2014; the Plaintiff’s fixed expenses in 22,00,000, 358,791,100, 14, 90, 2,947, 286, 81, 86, 87, 154, 37, 276, 371, 47, 475, 167, 106, 305, 165, 205, 360, 405, 305, 305, 50,000, 146,276, 2714, 276

In light of the above legal principles, it is impossible to use the scrap metal storage prior to the purification of radioactive contamination due to the lower value of the scrap metal contaminated. Accordingly, it is deemed that the fixed expenses were in proximate causal relation with radioactive contamination. In light of the quantity, weight and transport method of the scrap metal of this case and ordinary forms of the scrap metal transactions, method of storage, etc. of the scrap metal of this case, if the scrap metal sold by the Plaintiff was contaminated by radioactive contamination, the Defendant COS chemical knew or could have known that the purchaser or the subsequent purchaser’s scrap metal storage was contaminated by radioactive materials that it is practically impossible to conduct the scrap metal business at this place until the purification measure is completed, and thus, the Plaintiff was able to have known or could have known that the scrap metal storage of the purchaser or the subsequent purchaser would actually be impossible until the purification measure is completed, and the Plaintiff did not operate the ○ storage for 20 days from March 26, 2014 to April 14, 2014 to 200, 397, 2997.297

It is reasonable to view that the damage is also the damage caused by the above illegal act of Defendant COSA.

(C) Business loss loss

In addition to the whole purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 14, 2012 and 2013, the plaintiff's operating income in 2012 and 2013 is acknowledged to have been the average of 753,460 won per day (=(241,191,650 won in operating income in 2012 + 208,834,674 won in operating income in 2013 + 208,674 in operating income in 2013 ¡À365 days]. The plaintiff was found to have not supplied scrap iron at ○○dong storage from March 26, 2014 to April 14, 2014, the ratio of sales at ○○dong storage found to have been 81% in operation income in 2013.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, 12,206,052 won (=753,460 wonx 20%) arising from the Plaintiff’s failure to operate the ○○dong storage for 20 days from March 26, 2014 to April 14, 2014 in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to deem that the above facts were losses arising from the above tort committed by Defendant COSmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

On April 4, 2014, Defendant COSmmmmmmchemical sent an official door to the effect that it is possible for the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission to distribute scrap metal not contaminated with the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, to distribute it. At the time, the Plaintiff’s customer was also an enterprise other than the East Internationalcom, and thus, the Plaintiff’s business losses from April 5, 2014 should not be included in the scope of compensation. However, in light of the following circumstances: ① each vehicle loaded with the instant scrap metal was released by the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission from April 4, 2014 to April 12, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s business losses from April 14, 2014 should not be seen as being included in the scope of compensation for damages: (i) each vehicle loaded with the instant scrap metal was detained in the East Internationalcom to remove radioactivity; (ii) it appears that the said international steel was the principal customer of the Plaintiff; and (iii) it cannot be seen that the Plaintiff’s supply of the said scrap.

(4) Limitation of liability

Although there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had a duty of care in the transaction to check whether the scrap metal of this case was contaminated with the radioactivity, if it is contrary to the principle of fairness to compensate the perpetrator for all damages in the damage compensation case caused by the tort, the court set the amount of damages in accordance with the doctrine of comparative negligence by analogical application of the doctrine of comparative negligence can take into account the factors of the victim.

However, the aforementioned fixed costs and business losses may vary depending on the victim’s fixed costs, operating profits, and the pollution purification period may vary depending on the victim’s shape, condition, management, and storage method of the scrap metal storage. In light of the fact that there is relatively little possibility of understanding the above elements between the Defendant COSchemical and the Plaintiff, it seems that Defendant COSchemical’s compensation for all fixed costs and business losses may be contrary to the principle of fairness. Accordingly, taking account of all the circumstances indicated in the instant case, the liability of Defendant COS chemical is limited to the fixed costs and business losses, and the liability of Defendant COS chemical is limited to 50% each.

(5) Sub-committee

Defendant COSmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

4. Determination as to the claim for Defendant Woo-chips

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant is liable for warranty, default liability due to incomplete performance, or liability for damages due to tort, since the defendant supplied the scrap metal contaminated by radiation although it is obligated to supply complete goods to the plaintiff.

B. Determination

(1) Whether there is warranty liability

Articles 580(1) and 575(1) of the Civil Act stipulate that the buyer has the right to cancel the sales contract and the right to claim damages in the event of defects in the subject matter of the sale. However, the fact that the Defendant Il Il-chul returned the price corresponding to the portion returned due to radioactive contamination among the scrap scrap supplied to the Plaintiff is recognized as above, and the liability to compensate the Plaintiff for damages under the above Civil Act cannot be deemed as including the Plaintiff’s non-use damages, fixed expenses, and business losses in the scope of the liability to compensate the damages under the above Civil Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(2) Whether the non-performance liability due to incomplete performance exists

In order to recognize liability for damages due to nonperformance of Article 390 of the Civil Act, there must be causes attributable to the obligor, such as intentional or negligent, and according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading in Eul evidence No. 1, Defendant W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W-W

(3) Whether tort liability exists

As seen above, it cannot be recognized that there was an intentional or negligent act on the delivery of the instant scrap contaminated by radioactivity to the Plaintiff by Defendant Woo-cps, and as such, Defendant Woo-coo did not constitute a person causing contamination under the Framework Act on Environmental Policy. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this premise is without merit, without any need for further review.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Shobyps is without merit.

5. Conclusion

A. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant COSmmche is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff ordering the payment of the above amount is revoked, and the order to pay the above amount is issued to Defendant Cmmmchemmche. The Plaintiff’s remaining appeal against the Defendant Cmmchemchem

B. The Plaintiff’s claim for Defendant Woo-crap shall be dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds. Accordingly, the part of the judgment of the first instance ordering payment of KRW 5,312,439 to Defendant Woo-crap in some different conclusions is unfair, but the judgment of the first instance cannot be modified so as to be favorable to Defendant Woo-crap and disadvantageous to the appellant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal for Defendant Woo-crap without justifiable grounds is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent.

Judges Kim Kim (Presiding Justice)

1) Statement of pleading at the first date for pleading of the party;

2) If the above 2,343,166 won is multiplied by 20 days and then multiplied by 37,959,289 won is multiplied by 81%, and the Plaintiff is seeking only KRW 37,959,209 among them.